Vista's legal fine print includes extensive provisions granting Microsoft the right to regularly check the legitimacy of the software and holds the prospect of deleting certain programs without the user's knowledge. During the installation process, users "activate" Vista by associating it with a particular computer or device and transmitting certain hardware information directly to Microsoft.

..............it sets significant limits on the ability to copy or transfer the software, prohibiting anything more than a single backup copy and setting strict limits on transferring the software to different devices or users.

Vista also incorporates Windows Defender, an anti-virus program that actively scans computers for "spyware, adware, and other potentially unwanted software." The agreement does not define any of these terms, leaving it to Microsoft to determine what constitutes unwanted software.

For greater certainty, the terms and conditions remove any doubt about who is in control by providing that "this agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights." For those users frustrated by the software's limitations, Microsoft cautions that "you may not work around any technical limitations in the software."

Vista's Fine Print Raises Red Flags
..............it sets significant limits on the ability to copy or transfer the software, prohibiting anything more than a single backup copy and setting strict limits on transferring the software to different devices or users.

Click to expand...

MS revised that and have now relaxed all that stuff about backups and letting the user replace their hardware. i think i heard that on one of leo laporte's podcasts

note this post was relocated here, since it contains slightly different info from the first post I'll leave it intact. And was an answer to:

Cochise said:

Being a bit on the slow side, and having not read all the Posts in this Thread, may I please just ask.......Is VISTA security (of any description) the sole domain of M$??.....

I seem to recall, when Vista was only a Spectre looming on the horizon, that no third party Security software would be allowed to be downloaded!!??...and, once VISTA was D/Ld and fully installed they could control anything you actually wished to install.....Jus' wonderin'.....

Cochise...Taking in the Vista in Vienna...

Click to expand...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
strangely the EULA does say its their determination what you can and can't run, aps that attempt to circumvent their interpretation of the EULA can be disabled or removed by them, this is likely the legal groundwork to safeguard the DRM scheme and locking PatchGuard (64bit) a further means to avoid circumvention.

Vista's legal fine print includes extensive provisions granting Microsoft the right to regularly check the legitimacy of the software and holds the prospect of deleting certain programs without the user's knowledge. During the installation process, users "activate" Vista by associating it with a particular computer or device and transmitting certain hardware information directly to Microsoft.

..............it sets significant limits on the ability to copy or transfer the software, prohibiting anything more than a single backup copy and setting strict limits on transferring the software to different devices or users.

Vista also incorporates Windows Defender, an anti-virus program that actively scans computers for "spyware, adware, and other potentially unwanted software." The agreement does not define any of these terms, leaving it to Microsoft to determine what constitutes unwanted software.

For greater certainty, the terms and conditions remove any doubt about who is in control by providing that "this agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights." For those users frustrated by the software's limitations, Microsoft cautions that "you may not work around any technical limitations in the software."

.
only firms with a relationship to Microsoft are getting real access to kernel level drivers
not true of malware authors, cracking PatchGuard is harder not impossible and there is alot of money to be made, however doing it illegally to develop security applications isnt going to fly. Its an artificial choke point for licensing much like the one introduced in Game Explorer

there is security that will run, if it was developed by a big enough player that was able to leverage Microsoft for the API's or is in bed with them. Or simply isnt hooking into the OS deep enough to avoid subversion.

between WGA and Windows Defender, it will exceed the abilities of the majority of the public to workaround the onerous (and possibly illegal) restrictions in the EULA

my opinion is of course in my sig, but more to the point is that Micosoft is actually far more vulnerable than most suspect, after 5 years and 6 billions dollars they have alot riding on this, but adoption for most people entails a completely new system, the DRM restrictions choke everyone, compatibility issues are rife and IBM, HP and Intel are pushing in both the EU courts as well as for a unified Linux platform.

If a user friendly option was available on new OEM systems without the DRM, theyd really be in for a fight.

I've sensed this MS attitude for a while now and have the same feelings as the author. I also detect a general lack of enthusiasm from a lot of reviewers once you get past the "wow look at the graphics" kid stuff.

I timed a high end dual core/dual HD Laptop purchase at the beginning of January so as not to get Vista pre installed but wanted to dual boot it with XP MCE.

Have been runninng Vista now for about a month and tough to get under the hood and constantly circumventing the MS "we know better" stuff.

Hope I get to like it better than I do, but if not, it didn't cost me anything.